Sun Microsystems specifically requested several times during the
meeting that the option recorded in the draft minutes as
"Disapproval with comments" be recorded as "Conditional approval
(disapproval with comments)." We observed that the language of 9.8
in the JTC1 Directives explicitly equates these two forms. That
request was accepted with no objection.

This change is important to Sun in ensuring that our position is
correctly represented. We wish to make it completely clear that
we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete
agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability
among different implementations and providing interoperable access
to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.

Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based
on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as
presently written is technically incapable of achieving those
goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an
ISO Standard that would enable them. Sun voted Yes on Conditional
approval (disapproval with comments) because this is the only one
of the options we were given that would guarantee that the
specific changes already agreed upon by consensus in V1 would
actually be implemented.

We observed during the meeting that according to 9.8, the option
sometimes described as "No with comments" actually contains an
explicit promise of approval once "the changes that would make the
document acceptable" have been implemented. We voted in the
expectation that those changes will be made and that a version of
DIS 29500 capable of achieving its objectives would be approved as
an ISO Standard. We welcome the opportunity to work with others
during the resolution phase to bring DIS 29500 to a level of
specification that would enable its approval, and we request that
our vote for conditional approval be correctly represented in the
minutes.

In Spain IBM (backed by FFII) has asked for the same "conditioned no with comments". We have no problem with this standard if everything that is wrong in it is fully fixed with enough warranties that this will happen. Microsoft just wants to get its "yes" promising that some day they will fix some things… that never will come if you don't force them with a "NO" or "CONDITIONED NO" vote. Sun is just naming in another way the "Conditioned NO" vote.

So IBM is not any "dogmatic anti-OOXML supporter". Indeed, never have been, the same as FFII, FSF, OFE et al.

It seems the INCITS no with comments included a comment (voted for by Sun) that the standard should also include all previous binary office document formats of Microsoft.
That is extremly unlikely to be the case and would make the "No with comments" the same as an unfixable straightforward NO.